Back when I was a program manager at an Asian Pacific American arts organization, we’d put together events (readings, performances, salons) in which we’d present two or three or eight or ten artists in a single event or in a year’s worth of an event series. When curating these events we took into account not just the artistic discipline, genre, style, content, and intent, but also the artists’ age, origin, and, especially, ethnicity.

No event was satisfactory unless every artist in it was of a different ethnicity from the others. Extra points for including rare ethnicities, like Indonesian, Tibetan, or any kind of Pacific Islander. Hapas (mixed race APAs) needed to be present, and triple word scores went to “secret hapas,” or those who were entirely Asian, but mixed of different ethnicities, like Thai/Filipino or Japanese/Indian.

Yes, we were tokenizing, in a big way. But we were also diversifying, being inclusive. Now, can’t you say the same thing about Angelina Jolie?

she said this on Good Morning America:

“I want Mad (Maddox) to know that as our family grew and we all came together, we didn’t just start having children, biological children … Yes, we have Shiloh and it’s been a wonderful experience, but we want to find another brother or sister in the world for our family.”

She added: “I’m on the pill.”

Jolie said it’s important to balance how their children perceive their family.
“You know, now the questions are more when you have a mixed-race family, do you balance the races so there’s another African person in the house for Z? So there’s another Asian person in the house for Mad? Shiloh has Brad and I she can look at,” the actress said.

“What’s best for the children as they grow? … We don’t just want to have different children from different countries. That’s not the point,” Jolie said.

Wow. Well, what is the point then? Jolie has taken a lot of flak for it’s-a-small-world-after-alling her own family, but this is the first time I’ve seen her in print admitting to it.

And it might sound hypocritical of me to pile on her for force-diversifying her own family (although I don’t think it does), when I’ve engaged in years of force-diversity on the job. But then, on the one hand we have an arts programmer with a diversity mission quality-controlling arts product for diversity; an adult professional arranging a group of other adult professionals self-selected for their interest in engaging their own racial and ethnic origins. On the other hand you have a public figure publicly arranging her infant children by race.

Oh, and by the way, “Asian” and “African” are useful markers in the United States because they are used as such here. But Maddox isn’t “Asian,” he’s Cambodian. And Zahara isn’t “African,” she’s Ethiopian. If Jolie were really concerned about them having contact with their birth heritages, she’d make that distinction herself. But, despite her position as goodwill ambassador, and all of her travels, she still seems to view her children’s world from the point of view of an American midwesterner, if that. Should she adopt another little black kid to give Zahara someone to identify with? Or should she adopt another little yellow kid so that Maddox won’t feel so alone?

How about neither? How about just making sure that “Mad” has access to Cambodian American community groups, and “Zee” to Ethiopian American community groups, as they grow up? How about making sure they both have access to groups for transracially adopted children?

Hey, and how about this: being a role model for American adopting parents of the future? Since transracial/transnational adoption is becoming more and more viable, more and more socially acceptable, more and more understood, there’s going to be a Casa de los Babys wave in the near future, and parents like Jolie and, now, Madonna, are going to be setting the standard for transracial/national adopting behavior. How about not talking about your next adoption like you’re picking out a new pair of shoes: well, now that I have a black and a brown pair, should I go for red, or should I get another black pair so I don’t wear out the first so quickly? How about not putting an affirmative action quota on your family life? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for affirmative action quotas in education, workplaces, residential developments and the like, but not in families.

And how about—if you’re going to politicize your adoption—adopting a needy, impoverished child from your own country, just to show that, you know, you’re aware of the fact that there are such? I know it’s not as glamorous or exotic. But maybe, when choosing your next family member, genuine virtue should be on the table rather than appearances.